Mad Moderate

That craigslist link tells you all you need to know. That landlady is a real jerk and should be sued.

I came across this on craigs list ....
http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA.html#familialstatus

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to discriminate against renters for any reason? Or does that just apply to race?

the other thing that bugs me about people's collective views of politics or international relations is that they regard them almost exactly the same way they would sports teams, rootin' for one side or another to the bitter end. sports and teams are lousy models for reality.

IMO it's interesting how conversations about politics these days devolve into people justifying their position, or the country's position, or what should be the country's position based upon who can smash whose head in. and that says what, exactly?

hate to say it folks, but we are being collectively outmaneuvered by the up-and-comings, notably China. despite the size of their military, they seem to get a lot of what they want by talking and negotiating and cajoling, not by threatening to bash heads in or blow things up. we may or may not be the world's "lone superpower", but it's sure costing us going the way we're going. if it keeps up, we aren't gonna be there long.

time to change directions, i'd say.

Global Warming not a reality? Please take your head out of the sand. The glaciers on Greenland are melting much faster than previously thought and the consequences of ice that was on land going into the ocean will be higher sea levels. The melting freshwater ice from Greenland and the low salinity ice from the Arctic could well shut down the Gulf Stream in the next few decades. Global warming means more cold for N. Europe AND Cape Cod (lower ocean temps off the Cape). Brrrr. When the ice moves off Antarctica and into the ocean 90% of Cape Cod will be under water (but that's a few hundred years from now so why care?) The issue is NOT whether or not Global Warming is happening. It IS. The issue is what to do about it. And here the answers are tricky because no matter what we do it's going to continue and all we might be able to do is slow it down a little. But... and here's where right and left can come together... wind farms and nuclear energy benefit both the environment and our national interest.

Are you sure you are a moderate? You sound almost right. I noticed you had to include a jab at Limbaugh though. It is nice to read some intelligent debate about energy. I do agree with you on the energy issue. In addition to what you suggested we need to open the continentle shelf to drilling aswell. Have you really fallen for the "global warming" crap? I noticed the other day that three ice cubes in my glass melted and amazingly the water never over flowed the glass. No, ihad not drunk anything from the glass. I also own property near the water. I am more worried about my property taxes going up, or will some wacko law maker make it imposible for me to drive my Dodge Ram 1500. By the way the Dodge Ram was ranked one of the most envirometly unfriendly vehiicles recently. It has great pick up though.

People opposed to nuclear power usually have a nuclear plant in their town. Before you make this waste figure out what to do with it. I think it's selfish to pass the problem on. I guess the same old things like conservation and alternatives would help. Teach the kids at school a little about energy use.Tufts has an incredible program teaching the kids and doing alterations on their campus to save energy. Put a solar panel on every roof for a start.We built our house to be efficient and it sure paid off.Sometimes people look to hard for basic answers.

Nuclear safety and waste are issues that need attention. Depending on what you read the proposal to store waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is fine for at least 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years but maybe not 1,000,000. Is it reasonable to suppose that in the next 1,000 years we'll find better ways to eliminate/handle nuclear waste? Given what's happened in technology in the past 100 years I would think so.

Likewise, nuclear safety is an issue that can be addressed if we have the will and are willing to pay for it.

I wouldn't want a Chernobyl style plant in my backyard but I'd welcome a new generation American/European style plant without hesitation.

Nuclear plants, when they go bad, have dramatic concsequences. But the good news is that they rarely go bad. Carbon based energy delivers bad consequences every minute of every day. I'm sure there are stats out there that would show that there are FAR MORE health and safety issues per capita from oil/coal than nuclear.

For those against nuclear power, please answer the question of what you propose instead?

Brian, Come to Plymouth across the bay and take this 900 tons of high level nuclear waste back to your town. Nobody else wants it but it sounds like you have no problem with it. The Pilgrim Nuclear waste dump will be making 30 tons a year of this cheap stuff for the next 20 years so send your friends over for their share too.God help us if we have to look at windmills. I would much rather have "clean, cheap" nuclear power.

Brian - so where do you want this cheap, clean nuclear power plant sited?

Maybe the National Seashore, seeing as how it's so benign?

Well Brian at the rate these things are being pushed up all around the world, the desecration of all of nature seems to be inevitable. How ironic!

I admit it, I am a conservative and I am against the wind farm project. My reasons are simple, the wind farm will have no significant effect on pollution, energy needs or anything else of value. 400 megawatts on a windy day is nothing to be excited about considering a nuclear plant can produce 6 times that 365 days a year, cheap, and clean! The only effect the wind farm will have is the desecration of Nantucket Sound

Agreed, Gadfly, there are valid issues when it comes to building wind turbines on "Natucket Schoals." As there are for Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, where Cape Wind wants to build its turbines.

General Comment,
If we assume that wind-generated electricity is econmoically feasible and must be part of an overall energy strategy for this country, whenever this we get around to crafting such a strategy, we should all be disturbed by what is happening.

1. The Army Corps did a poor DEIR. Even other federal agencies say so.

2. Gordon & Co. did little to prevent this although it was in their interest to get a clean cut at the ball in the first try.

3. The Alliance up until recently has been short in terms of effective publicity and reasoned argument. They have never given up and that is to their credit, but they needed a Vinnick two years ago. Sue Nickerson is great but she is too much of a lightening rod to be the front man.

4. Now the public debate, as seen here and elsewhere, is degenerating into verbal pratfalls and too much nasty blather.

This does not advance the cause of making Wind Power more viable, or an easier pill for folks to swallow. Vermont is now crafting tougher review. Why? There are valid issues to debate about the Natucket Schoals site.

Oh okay Drew, I hear you.

Magical,

The conservative/liberal argument regarding this project has not been put forth by me anywhere... EVER. I was responding to the comments of "simple math" above. The most far out argument against this project I have heard yet are that this is a Conservative effort, and that the company should not be making profit from this venture.

As long as the stay out of Jellystone Park, I won't have to kill tourists and steal their pic-a-nic baskets!

Drew, lets face it, this IS a political issue. You want to reduce it down to conservatives vs. liberals but that is you not me. And frankly, I see that as yet another distraction to the real issue... the building of Cape Wind right smack in the middle of one of the Cape's most precious natural resources. And wow, Drew... you would put Cape Wind on such a pedestal, oh my!

I was for Cape Wind....before I voted against it.

Henry Hub, I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours and everyone elses on this blog! Let's compare!

"simple math,"

The attempts to make this into a political issue are so far in left field it is rather comical. I can assure you all that, unfortunately, there are FAR fewer "Conservatives" in support of Cape Wind than "Liberals."

Cape Wind, like conservation, is not something that should have to be advocated; it should be common sense. The sad part is that we are all, regardless of our politics, being forced to debate something that should be a no brainer.

Well said Mike.

Magical Eye - how's your conservation efforts going? Pull out your last electric bill - how many kilowatt hours did you consume last month? Thanks.

Robert and James! We so need to hear your thoughts and voices here. Let me tell you it is HARD country!

it is the easiest answer, of course. And all to obvious.
In light of the human energy being presently wasted in the middle east, I wish you would check this guy out.
He really has been there, and seen that. He does not parrot what he hears, he goes there and sees. We need this type of journalism there, and here, but mostly we get the spin.
And we believe it. This is frightening folks. As many Red Sox fans would lament; Why can't we get this guy on our team?
He is.
Robert Fisk.
And always will be.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/

James! What a breath of fresh air. Am getting so tired of the hot air. YES! Conservation! What is it about Conservation that people don't understand?

'Incidentally, things I can say about our energy future: 1) Conservation, conservaton, conservation, 2) Do the math. A few kilowatts of clean power will not replace a few 1000 kilowatts of "dirty" power'

gosh, that was easy, and significantly correct.
The one thing I don't understand, is our 'conservative' types here do not advocate, and see exactly this.
You would think conservative means all about conservation. Conservation is not radical, or left wing.
Who wants to make some money here?
Who benefits by 'Cape Wind'? The few?
or the many?
And why do we have no 'conservatives' against this rapacious plan?
thank you, James Aach.

For those of you interested in energy issues, you might find the following worth a look -- a new techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry, written by a longtime nuclear engineer (me). It is available on the net at no cost to readers. This book provides an entertaining and accurate portrait of the nuclear industry today and how a nuclear accident would be handled. The book is called “Rad Decision”, and is at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.

I don't know what our energy future holds, but I'm sure we'll do a lot better job of deciding if we understand our energy present. (And from this insider's viewpoint, few do.) That is what Rad Decision is all about. Readers on both sides of the issue will find plenty to ponder.

"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog

Incidentally, things I can say about our energy future: 1) Conservation, conservaton, conservation, 2) Do the math. A few kilowatts of clean power will not replace a few 1000 kilowatts of "dirty" power.

I hope you check out Rad Decision

Hey, Mike;
I can't help but think that picture on your blog looks familiar....
Is that your dad? Or is he the guy that comes into the 'Ho' to eat the menstrual chowder?

I've climbed all the towers, soon after they are built. Any towers, any town, just to be first.
You know, to get a view. Yeah, that's it.
I can't wait until these new ones are up. I'll be up there baby!
what do you want me to paint?

One of us (whichever CCToday blogger has the tallest boat) should spray paint the Blog Chowder URL onto a few of the turbines.

It amazes me that there are some who feel those who die in combat should not be memorialized in the news. These are obituaries. They are my only knowledge of those who have given their lives at the request of their country. I am always struck by the vitality and diversity of the lives we have lost.

I think it would be rude not to watch these telecasts, even though no one would ever know if I changed the channel. It is a matter of respect and these programs should not be diminished into a right/wrong or liberal/conservative panderings.

Hey why don't we just pave over it and be done with it?! lol

Thanks GG. I agree that patriotism doesn't require sacrifice per se... but it does require a willingness to sacrifice when that is called for. It also requires deep respect for those who have sacrificed for us and not a simple dimissive, "that's a career choice," washing of hands. The labels I used for the people at the bar were accurate and convenient. But it seems that they were also a big distraction for Drew and Brian.

Patriotism requires whatever is needed. If sacrifice is called for, or hard work, or honesty, or fairness, or charity...that is what is needed.

The idea that we should not know the names of the dead flies in the face of our traditional belief that their supreme sacrifice has value and is noble. Let's scrape the names off the Wall, let's not feel an extra pang of sadness as we contemplate tombs of unknown soldiers.

This blog is truly disturbing. As I understand it Mike Marks found in the people around him at the Ho some clear contrasts if he were to take their appearnecs and ages as indicators of their beliefs. It sems the books belied their covers.

And who really cares what color his chowder was?...it was HIS chowder.

By the way...El Greco....here you are! How is the research going?

Okay Brian - I took a quick look at the article you pointed to. Here's what I saw:

"The most centrist outlet proved to be the 'NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.' CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."

I'm not trying to simply tell you something. I'm trying to SELL you something. I'm trying to sell you on the idea that airing the names of the servicemen and women who died for our country is the proper thing to do. Aaron Brown did just that and, according to the report on media bias you cite, he's just one tick off dead center.

I'd like to hear your answer to the question I asked Drew. Does patriotism require sacrifice?

Is Carl Marx a relative of yours or are you just trying to tell us something?

This guy thinks we are idiots!

Read this little article, "Mad Moderate" http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Drew - Okay, fair thought about it,"occupation" describes what we're doing but not why we're doing it. How about "occupation/reconstruction"? Does that work for you? Is there a single word for that?

Drew - 1. you missed my joke about red chowder (I suppose you're under 45). Red used to mean "Communist" - I was referring to the guy's comment about CNN. 2. I used the word occupation not for political slant but a) because that's what we've been doing and b) because it's shorter and pithier than "the period following the invasion." If you have a better word for what we've been doing I'll use it.

3. The NY TIMES PUBLISHED GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE ELECTION LAST THURSDAY. I've seen Anderson Cooper say good things about electricity and schools. I've read/seen plenty of positive stories. But to make things better we need to hear what's wrong. If the wheels on your car fall off after a visit to the mechanic you don't praise his work on the windshield wipers.

4. What I see here is that ardent supporters of the current President believe that bad news is bad for "their guy" and that "truth" means only good news.

5. With regard to the Patriot Act and the current imbriglio over domestic spying - Support, yes, with constitutional congressional oversight.